Pain Relief Advocate Pays High Price For Free Speech
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TOPEKA, KS – A federal court in Topeka, Kansas today imposed a $200 per day fine upon nationally renowned pain relief activist Siobhan Reynolds for her refusal to comply with a pair of subpoenas secured in an effort to chill her constitutionally protected speech, as well as an additional $200 per day fine upon her advocacy organization, the Pain Relief Network (PRN). Reynolds, who is President of PRN, has been an outspoken advocate for sufferers of chronic pain and physicians’ ability to provide appropriate pain management treatment without risk of criminal prosecution. The subpoenas are part of an ongoing grand jury investigation related to the federal prosecution of Dr. Stephen Schneider and his wife, Linda, who operated a medical practice specializing in pain relief and whose prosecution Reynolds has publicly condemned. Reynolds is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union in the case.
"The constitutional rights of Ms. Reynolds, and of all Americans, must not come with a price tag. The court effectively decreed that she may remain free to exercise her First Amendment rights, but it will cost $400 a day," said Jay Rorty, an attorney with the ACLU who represented Reynolds in court today. "While Ms. Reynolds is relieved not to have to go to prison today, the government is still imposing an unreasonable choice between exercising her right to free speech and going bankrupt."
Today’s court order requires that both Reynolds and PRN pay fines of $200 per day for as long as she refuses to comply with the subpoenas – a penalty that will quickly bankrupt Reynolds and PRN.
"This fine is just the latest symptom of the federal government’s shameful assault on those who suffer from chronic pain and the doctors who work to bring them relief," said Reynolds. "I chose to stand up in defense of patients, doctors and the First Amendment, and now I will pay the price. But I will continue to draw attention to the under-treatment of pain in this country and to expose the federal government’s callous policies that turn honest physicians and desperate patients into criminals."
Reynolds founded PRN with her husband, since deceased, who suffered from an extremely painful congenital connective tissue disorder – a condition that their son, now 17 years old, has inherited. PRN is a national advocacy organization that offers support to chronic pain patients and opposes the criminal prosecution of physicians based on medical decisions.
On March 10, 2009, subpoenas were issued to both Reynolds and PRN ordering that Reynolds turn over all personal and organizational communications on any subject with any former employees or patients of the Schneider Medical Clinic or with any of dozens of named individuals, including members of the Schneider family and members of the Schneiders’ legal and medical defense team, as well as a record of all Reynolds’ phone calls for the past 17 months.
Emblematic of the subpoenas’ First Amendment intrusion is the demand for correspondence with a company that Reynolds enlisted to erect a billboard in support of the Schneiders – a clear example of constitutionally protected speech, according to the ACLU. The subpoena also seeks a copy of an advocacy video Reynolds made concerning pain relief and the government’s related prosecution of physicians.
The subpoenas are part of a grand jury investigation initiated by the same Assistant U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting the Schneiders, and who had previously sought, and was denied, a gag order to prevent Reynolds from speaking about the Schneiders’ case. With the gag order denied, the prosecutor convened a grand jury and secured the subpoenas in an attempt to silence Reynolds by invading her privacy and by raising the specter of criminal prosecution, according to the ACLU.
The ACLU also contends that the subpoenas are an impermissible intrusion into the Schneiders’ defense team – an attempt to gain confidential information not otherwise available to the prosecution. Attempts by the ACLU and the Schneiders’ attorneys to quash the subpoenas have been denied by the court.
Reynolds’ testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on DEA Oversight concerning under-treatment of chronic pain and related overzealous federal enforcement may be found at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/July2007/Reynolds070712.pdf
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.